290 Bills Stalled in Senate

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
That's a lot of fucking bills:

Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate.

The list is the latest sign that Democrats in the lower chamber are frustrated with their Senate counterparts.

An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the list is put together during each Congress, but that this year’s number is likely the largest ever. However, he said Pelosi blames GOP senators, not Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) or Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

“The Speaker believes that the filibuster has its place, but clearly Senate Republicans are taking what was once a rare procedural move and abusing it to the detriment of progress for America’s working families,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

But some House Democrats and their aides have shown no reticence in blaming Senate Democrats, who enjoyed a supermajority until Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was sworn in earlier this month.
Click to expand...


I know that it is popular to shit on Nancy Pelosi, but the chamber she presides over gets shit done. Whether you like what they pass or not, the fact of the matter is that Nancy gets things passed. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is completely useless in the Senate.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills
 
I know the senate is meant to "cool" legislation, but perhaps the modern filibuster (essentially just a mandatory 3/5 requirement) is overdoing it a teeny bit.
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's a lot of fucking bills:




I know that it is popular to shit on Nancy Pelosi, but the chamber she presides over gets shit done. Whether you like what they pass or not, the fact of the matter is that Nancy gets things passed. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is completely useless in the Senate.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills
Click to expand...

I wonder how much worse the deficit would be if Harry Reid could "get shit done"? :cright:

I'm gonna copyright that shit if it's ok, I mean maybe you lost sight of the epic problem that we ALREADY have far too much government bills passed which are almost all spending bills.
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's a lot of fucking bills:




I know that it is popular to shit on Nancy Pelosi, but the chamber she presides over gets shit done. Whether you like what they pass or not, the fact of the matter is that Nancy gets things passed. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is completely useless in the Senate.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83059-senate-sitting-on-290-house-bills
Click to expand...

I am far from a consitutional expert but wasn't Congress set up to work that way? Unless you are making the argument that with 60 Democrats Reid should have been able to do more.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I wonder how much worse the deficit would be if Harry Reid could "get shit done"? :cright:

I'm gonna copyright that shit if it's ok, I mean maybe you lost sight of the epic problem that we ALREADY have far too much government bills passed which are almost all spending bills.
Click to expand...


First of all, the Democrats have PAYGO in place so any spending bills passed ahve to have a source of financing or accompanying spending cuts. So, how much worse would the deficit get? Not much at all.

And I'll go right ahead and call bullshit on the claim that almost all bills passed are spending bills.
 
NigelTufnel said:
First of all, the Democrats have PAYGO in place so any spending bills passed ahve to have a source of financing or accompanying spending cuts. So, how much worse would the deficit get? Not much at all.
Click to expand...
LOL, your party is a party of lawyers, funded by lawyers and you've already proved you can get around PAYGO just fine.

Whether it be by using the "emergency exemption" like the Dems did with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (although this one was extra cute because they said ONLY the spending increases did PAYGO not apply to and not the tax cuts)
or
as PAYGO does not apply to "direct spending" if it is incorporated into an annual or supplemental appropriations spending bill, then you circumvent it by including the direct spending increases in an annual appropriation bill, which you in fact already did for the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.

Basically PAYGO in a practical sense is a way for leftwing Dems to make more popular bipartisan spending look like "doggone it! this is gonna require supplemental funding" (as in we are going to have to pass tax increases), while exempting their giant ideological spending bills from worrying about it.

NigelTufnel said:
And I'll go right ahead and call bullshit on the claim that almost all bills passed are spending bills.
Click to expand...
Even in 2009, with nomination votes to affirm, the senate is still loaded with spending bills:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0809/081109cdpm1.htm
 
To the hypocritical 'Rats, gridlock is good when Chuck U Shumer holds up George Bush's judicial nominations, but bad when 'Rats want to spend more money.
 
the article linked to the OP promises a list of the stalled bills......it isn't provided....anyone know what's stalled and whether we're glad they are?.....
 
cawacko said:
I am far from a consitutional expert but wasn't Congress set up to work that way? Unless you are making the argument that with 60 Democrats Reid should have been able to do more.
Click to expand...


Actually, while the Senate was set up as an inherently undemocratic institution to thwart the will of the majority by providing over-representation of less populous states and under-representation of more populous states, the imposition of a super-majority requirement runs counter to the constitution and is contrary to the Constitution.

Where the founders sought to impose a super-majority requirement they made it explicit. There is no constitutional basis for a supermarket requirement for bills to pass the Senate.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, while the Senate was set up as an inherently undemocratic institution to thwart the will of the majority by providing over-representation of less populous states and under-representation of more populous states, the imposition of a super-majority requirement runs counter to the constitution and is contrary to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
W.T.F.!?!?!?!?!

are you serious?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, I am 100% completely serious. What do you find objectionable?
Click to expand...

what do I find objectionable? not sure, maybe it's your total and willful ignorance of why the senate was created within the first article of the constitution and your complete ability to totally believe the bullshit you spouted about it. :good4u:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what do I find objectionable? not sure, maybe it's your total and willful ignorance of why the senate was created within the first article of the constitution and your complete ability to totally believe the bullshit you spouted about it. :good4u:
Click to expand...


Well, now there's some substance you can sink your teeth into.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, now there's some substance you can sink your teeth into.
Click to expand...

anyone with a logical and reasonable understanding of the constitution could never call a body of legislators enacted by our founding documents as 'undemocratic'. To do so makes you.....illogical and unreasonable.

Your version of the senate has me wondering just how much of the constitution you really understand.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, while the Senate was set up as an inherently undemocratic institution to thwart the will of the majority by providing over-representation of less populous states and under-representation of more populous states, the imposition of a super-majority requirement runs counter to the constitution and is contrary to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Undemocratic, yes....but it is a totally "republican" institution (meaning of or representing a republic)

I am tickled to death that our founders saw in their wisdom to set up the senate the way it is. I thought it was always the other side who went to hollering, "we're not a majority rule country!!!!" Again, I'm glad we're not. I'm glad I don't have to live according to laws made to govern Californians, New Yorkers or whatever. Got a neice and nephew who live in NY...egads, some of the stories they tell about laws governing everything from snow to trash to guns to vehicles.....yep, I'm glad those rules aren't universal just because they come from a "more populous" state.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, while the Senate was set up as an inherently undemocratic institution to thwart the will of the majority by providing over-representation of less populous states and under-representation of more populous states, the imposition of a super-majority requirement runs counter to the constitution and is contrary to the Constitution.

Where the founders sought to impose a super-majority requirement they made it explicit. There is no constitutional basis for a supermarket requirement for bills to pass the Senate.
Click to expand...

1) We are a democratic REPUBLIC

2) The Senate was established to provide a CHECK and BALANCE. It was designed so that the more heavily populous states could not run rough shod over the less populated states. The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES was designed as the people's HOUSE... THAT gives them representation based on population. The House is a Check and Balance against the lesser populated states getting their way solely due to their power in the SENATE. The two were put in place by our founders in an attempt to balance the power.

3) In turn, the Presidency and SCOTUS were designed to be additional checks and balances of power for Congress.

The super-majority was put in place for a reason as you state. for you to pretend it is unconstitutional is simply ridiculous.

For you to continue to whine about needing 60 votes is also comical.... given that you HAD 60 votes and your bills still did not pass. Not because of those evil Republicans, but because of DEMOCRATS not approving of the bullshit being shoveled by the Dem leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid)
 
Superfreak said:
1) We are a democratic REPUBLIC
Click to expand...

Yes, I know

Superfreak said:
2) The Senate was established to provide a CHECK and BALANCE. It was designed so that the more heavily populous states could not run rough shod over the less populated states. The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES was designed as the people's HOUSE... THAT gives them representation based on population. The House is a Check and Balance against the lesser populated states getting their way solely due to their power in the SENATE. The two were put in place by our founders in an attempt to balance the power.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is inherently undemocratic.

Superfreak said:
3) In turn, the Presidency and SCOTUS were designed to be additional checks and balances of power for Congress.
Click to expand...

And?


Superfreak said:
The super-majority was put in place for a reason as you state. for you to pretend it is unconstitutional is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The Constitution has no super-majority requirement for bills to pass the Senate. I'm not exactly saying that the filibuster is unconstitutional, just that there is no constitutional basis for it.

Superfreak said:
For you to continue to whine about needing 60 votes is also comical.... given that you HAD 60 votes and your bills still did not pass. Not because of those evil Republicans, but because of DEMOCRATS not approving of the bullshit being shoveled by the Dem leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid)
Click to expand...


I'm not whining, I was simply responding to cawacko's question. Easy, tiger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top